85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8

I have the 85mm, and just picked up a 100mm Macro Mk1. I've been wanting a good macro, and this will be easier to work with then my 60mm.

I use the 85mm as a portrait lens, and not much else. Now I'm starting to think I don't really need the 85mm anymore, as the 100mm should result in results that are similar to the 85mm.

Anyone with experience with both? Is one significantly better then the other in sharpness, color rendition, contrast? Or are they similar enough that I won't miss the 85mm?

I'm using these on a 50D, so I think the 100mm might be too long, but I'm not sure. I also have a Mk1 nifty fifty. Is having these 3 lenses overkill? Or is it a nice set of primes that give me good range? ie., is it worth it to keep the 85mm, or should I sell it? I do need to free up some change to replace my 10-20mm that is now in two pieces.

You've got both lenses, so compare them and see. 100mm f2.8 can be a great portrait lens, but of course 85mm f1.8 has much faster AF and it opens to f1.8. Just have to decide if you can live with f2.8 vs f1.8 for your portraits. 85mm f1.8 should blur backgrounds noticeably more, especially for full body portraits.

I don't have the 100mm yet, it'll be here later this week. I should have said that.

Try the 85mm at f2.8 and see if you are happy. 100mm f2.8 should look a lot like that.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16298545
I have the 85mm, and just picked up a 100mm Macro Mk1. I've been wanting a good macro, and this will be easier to work with then my 60mm.

I use the 85mm as a portrait lens, and not much else. Now I'm starting to think I don't really need the 85mm anymore, as the 100mm should result in results that are similar to the 85mm.

Anyone with experience with both? Is one significantly better then the other in sharpness, color rendition, contrast? Or are they similar enough that I won't miss the 85mm?

I'm using these on a 50D, so I think the 100mm might be too long, but I'm not sure. I also have a Mk1 nifty fifty. Is having these 3 lenses overkill? Or is it a nice set of primes that give me good range? ie., is it worth it to keep the 85mm, or should I sell it? I do need to free up some change to replace my 10-20mm that is now in two pieces.

I wouldn't own both lenses. unless I were shooting action I would keep the 100mm and sell the 85.

yea seems redundant, especially with the crop factor coming into play.

the 85 has a long MFD which is a real turnoff to me. it's more a sports and portrait lens.

If you shoot sports (or somewhat fast moving subjects), often shoot in tighter quarters, or shoot in lower light, there is a chance that you will miss the 85mm. Otherwise you probably could live with out it. (This also depends on what else you have.)

IMO the sharpness is better on the 100mm, so DOF is almost a wash if you consider the 85mm f/2.0 (at least) to be as sharp as the 100mm but the 100mm has 15mm.

Even with the use of the focus limiter set on the lens, it is not real fast to focus. The 100mm macro (assuming you have the first version) is not horrible, but just not all that fast. If you have the USM model (it is the second 100mm) it is better and you might miss the 85mm even less.

Some think that there are only two versions of the 100mm macro. There are three the original non-USM, the USM non-L, and the USM-L. I have both the 100mm non-USM and the L versions.

I personally keep the 85 for use at 1.8, tighter quarters, and when I need the previous plus AF speed. I keep the original EF 100 macro, because I don't think I would get much for it.

It's the non-USM version (Mark 1)

I like the build better on the non-USM better than the USM. I even like it better than the L - except it is not weather resistant.

But for macro the barrel extends (sometimes a little bit of a problem) and there is no tripod mount ring (the way I like to do macro was my biggest problem with the lens). For non-macro it is nosier and slower to AF (obviously since it is not USM). Those alone were not enough to make me upgrade (I've had it since before the USM was out). The USM model improves these. These were not enough for me to upgrade. As I'm getting older, these plus the IS was enough to upgrade to the L.

The first version of the 100mm macro is an excellent lens but I at times needed (wanted) the f/1.8 and faster auto focusing (non-macro work) - that is where the 85mm f/1.8 came in.

I probably could have made it work with only the macro (other than for inside sports). But for the cost (money and size in the bag) of the 85mm f/1.8, I didn't see the need "make it work" - so I got both.

I think you will like the lens. (But) You will need to determine, based on what else you own for fast AF, lower light, room size plus what, where, and how you shoot; if you also will need the 85mm. I do, you might not!

The 85 with extension tubes can do wonders... not for full-time macro use but excellent for portraits.

I have the 100L and the 85 1.8; I keep the 85 for the AF speed (less range so it'll usually grab focus a little faster) and the glass speed. 1 1/3 stops more of light means I can have half available and use the same settings. But I do shoot indoor sports where that makes a difference over using the IS on the L.

Nothing says you've got to keep it, I'd give it a few months, see what uses you actually apply them to; then make a decision of if you're better keeping it or selling it and putting the cash elsewhere.

I have the EF macro 100 mm f/2.8L IS USM mainly for what it's intended for, close up photography. The EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM I use because it's f/1.8, when the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM isn't fast enough. Problem is when, like last weekend, the reason for using the 85 mm, or rather for using f/1.8, was that it was raining so badly and thus was very dim daylight, that I was hesitating using the 85 mm. So I ended up using the more robust 70-200 mm instead, and had to go up in ISO correspondingly. But the 1DX is far less challenged by that, compared to the 7D i used before.

Anyway, different lenses for different tasks.

I have the most recent previous version of the current 100L macro, i.e. the non-L 100 f2.8 macro and the 85 f 1.8. I use the 85 for concerts and other low light photography where the f 2.8 would be more difficult. If you don't do any low light, high shutter speed shooting, then you might get along fine without it. It also focuses much faster than the 100 macro. I think the 100L focuses a bit faster than the other 100 macros, but still slower than the 85 f1.8.